>Is it better than dying or killing somebody? Fuck yes.

I find the self certainty in the phrasing there so shocking. Why can't you do this consistently with all communicable viruses that call? How do you know you're not being completely arbitrary deciding "just this one"

If I arbitrarily save lives, that's still saved lives. If I arbitrarily reduce the risk of causing harm, that's still reduced risk of harm. Those are good. I value results over consistency. I definitely value results over analysis paralysis, over waiting for a perfection of clarity not available this side of the grave.

And as best I know, I do "do this" with all potentially fatal communicable diseases. I get the flu shot every year. I even do it with non-fatal diseases as best I can. When I'm sick, I stay the hell home. I exercise good hygiene and good food safety.

And I have no idea why people don't do otherwise. All it takes is valuing others' health and survival.

If you have any symptoms of a communicable disease you should wear a mask.

The fact that we started doing this in 2020 is the problem, we should have done this every flu season.

It works, it reduces transmission. Asian countries have been doing this for years, it’s an expected norm.

The rest of the measures are debatable, but wearing a mask when you’re sick should not be.

I was caught completely by surprise when the huge mask resistance in the US emerged. I found it absurd, here you are making an ordeal of holding doors for people, like it makes you a great person, a useless gesture, and meanwhile the singular act of goodwill we have needed from others in 100 years is a freaking mask, and it is "robbing you of your freedoms".

I am biased though. I've always had a huge admiration of Japan and resentment that I couldn't wear a mask when sick, because it is illegal in many jurisdictions in the US for anyone over 18 to wear a mask as well as those under when it's not halloween.

I highly doubt after the pandemic masks are going to suddenly be legalized. Cops appear to just be ignoring the law right now, which is absurd.

Because we can look at countries who have done bad and go, yeah we could be like US/UK with all their actual deaths.

Your reply didn't really address the question. There are many communicable diseases that kill, if you're being consistent with this save every life possible approach, you also need to stay in your home any time the flu is going around. Do those deaths not count? Tens of thousands of dead are ok, but a hundred thousand is not? How do you decide which lives are worth saving when you throw out these caviler implied moral condemnations of anyone who wouldn't live in a state of permanent lockdown to save lives? that's the question. I'm asking this due to your super self certain wording.

Basically, I would never make such absolute statements because saving lives is always an opportunity cost. Human life is only so long, if I stay in lockdown a year to save a stranger, I might miss the last Thanksgiving with a parent or grandparent in their last year on the planet and never know until it is too late. That's not a trivial cost when you lock down a million to save one, while all one million lose a piece of their finite lives forever.

You are correct that I'd phrase this differently were I writing an abstract philosophy treatise or an analytical public health paper. I was writing in a casual discussion forum about what I am currently doing in the middle of a global public health crisis that has killed 2 million people, mostly needlessly. So yes, I'm going to write clearly and frankly.

And my moral condemnation for people is absolutely not cavalier. I actively and vigorously condemn the legion of assholes who think mild personal inconvenience is worse than mass death plus a much greater swathe of serious illness. I also condemn the societal moral failures that have impeded a sensible coordinated response, especially the politicians who, having created and sustained an underclass, now insist for ideological reasons that their suffering should be deepened while at the same time making the pandemic worse for everyone. It's both moral idiocy and moral obscenity. At best, it's obliviousness or IGMFU. But more often, as Serwer wrote, "The cruelty is the point."

That's a great question. While I'm not the person who you asked, I'd like to get some examples from you. Which other pandemic outbreak are you referring to? Or are you referring to some communicable disease which isn't a pandemic?

I'm mostly thinking of the flu. I actually don't know if there are any other viruses that take 1000s of lives in the average year. I also don't know why covid is classified as a pandemic and the flu is just normal. What is the criteria? A specific percentage of deaths? Some specific combination of R factor and rate of deaths? Mainly, I think it is clear that if you say 1% deaths justifies massive action but .01% does not, the deaths are still all human lives and so it is literally a claim that decides how much one life is worth. It is an economic calculus on human life, and so in my mind absolutely deserves an objective justification for deciding.

One example analogy would be increased airline safety regulation. More regulation increases ticket prices. Supply and demand means a high price will ultimately cause a family to decide to make a road trip over flying for economic reasons. The chance of dying in a multi hour car drive is far higher than in one hour on a commercial aircraft. You can at least use numbers in this case to say if new regulation is justified based on the expected lives saved.

Apart from the higher numbers a good reason to be concerned about the novel coronavirus is the "novel" part. The 1918 pandemic was initially known as the three day flu but the second wave mutated into a 12 hour death sentence.

Why don't old people just quarantine?

Why are you so certain of your viewpoint? Other people can't have different opinions to you?

I feel like the demonstrated effectiveness of quarantining old people is the reason you can't do that. It sounds great on paper, but it turns out that homes are staffed with lots of casual workers who work multiple jobs, and keeping covid out of them is near impossible.

Could this be addressed? Sure. Should it in future? Probably. But we don't get a whole lot of tries when there's a pandemic going around. It didn't work at first, how many attempts do you have to give it before you say "we need to solve that next time, right now we need a different solution"?

For starters, it doesn't just kill old people.

And I'm not concerned with other people's opinions. I'm concerned with their actions. If somebody follows public health guidelines, they can have whatever opinion they want. If they're out helping transmit a disease killing millions and wrecking the economy, I still don't care what their opinions are.

It doesn't just kill old people but it would be more sensible policy to note that it overwhelming kills older people -> https://www.health.gov.au/resources/covid-19-deaths-by-age-g...

Everybody is aware. And many countries did try to keep everything open while protecting old people. And it worked exactly nowhere.

But once the human tragedy became apparent, once the people in charge visited one or two hospitals, once it became clear that many people, while surviving, are left disabled - well - opinions changed.

You are free to have your opinion, of course.

Just the side-effects of COVID are bad enough, even for young people. The scientific reports quickly squashed my idea of live vaccination in March. It seems the media mostly focuses on the deaths since these are measurable and deaths are visceral, but maybe they should focus more on the general dangers of COVID for everyone.

How feasible is complete isolation for those who are immune compromised and elderly? How is the national coverage for services relating to basic necessities and the ability to those in this group to access them?

Given that this is a highly infectious virus, a reasonable person will understand that aside from those in this at risk group, every external point of contact is an additional risk. Should they also do the same?

The point I try to make is that with how connected our societies are, the interconnected nature enables the spread to the point where a single group quarantining is ineffective.

Think of it in terms of a spreading fire. The more a fire burns nearby, the higher the chances it will spread even to an isolated area or overcome fire resistance measures.

> Why are you so certain of your viewpoint?

because the lockdown in Victoria worked.

> Other people can't have different opinions to you?

Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?

I just posted it in another comment.

Co-authored by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox talking about the effectiveness of lock downs -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552...

> Screening passengers at borders or closing air or rail hubs. Experience has shown that these actions are not effective and could have serious adverse consequences; thus, they are not recommended.

So his solution is to not screen people and let everyone in?

> Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals

So his recommendation is to let people with virus loose in the community. You really believe that?

Maybe you need to listen to people who have experience with the flu and other corona viruses instead someone with small pox experience.

Lockdowns didn't exist in the literature prior to march 2020. This is all experimental clap trap being sold as science.

No that is wrong. Just read about the Spanish Flu.

Two days later, the city shut down most public gatherings and quarantined victims in their homes. The cases slowed.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-citie...

Edit. I see that you were probably responding to "Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?", in which case yes you make a valid point. However it still holds that this paper was from 2006, we're in a much better position today in many places to accomplish work remotely. Many assumptions are in fact not met. I'll keep my original comment as is below:

It is immaterial that D. A. co-authored that back in 2006. It was a different time, and the measures that he is professing against have _demonstrably_ proven to be effective.

The paper gives suggestions based on many assumptions that don't hold considering the implemented rules. But they're just suggestions. Offering this paper in the face of demonstrable evidence that these measures do in fact work seems a little irrational in my perspective.

Why is simply being effective the bar for lockdowns? Lots of things are effective that aren't used because we understand that there are tradeoffs and other policies can bring similar effectiveness with less side effects. as the saying goes: "Any idiot can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that is just strong enough to stand given the weight it's meant to bear."

It worked in the sense that one way to shutdown a computer is to throw it out of the windows.

Look at NSW for how its done. Reasonable sensible decisions taken over months with contact tracing that actually works.

> Reasonable sensible decisions taken over months with contact tracing that actually works.

yes and Victoria's contract tracing was not good at that time and the virus was spreading in the community so the right solution after that was to have a lockdown.